The authors do a critique and a comparison of epidemiological studies and point to various defects in the protocols of the Intephone studies.

" In studies funded by public bodies, blind protocols give positive results revealing cause-effect relationships between long-term latency or use of mobile phones (cellulars and cordless) and statistically significant increases of ipsilateral risk of brain gliomas and acoustic neuromas, with biological plausibility. I n studies funded or co-funded by the cellphone companies non-blind protocols give overall negative results with systematic underestimation of risk; however, also in these studies a statistically significant increase in risk of ipsilateral brain gliomas, acoustic neuromas, and parotid gland tumours is quite common when only subjects with at least 10 years of latency or exposure to mobile phones (only cellulars) are considered."

Some of the fails in Interphone study are, for example, that they Interphone protocol defines "exposed" subjects having used the phone "at least once a week for at least six months", so even if a risk exist it is diluted because they are included people with almost no use of mobile phones, other defect is that on majority of Interphone studies, fewer than 10% of the exposed cases and controls had completed at least 10 year of mobile phone continuous use. And more fails; that the Interphone protocol considers cordless phone users as not exposed, that the Interphone study fails to consider other types of malignant and benign head tumours, except gliomas, meningiomas, neuromas and parotid gland tumours. Etc..